+275 (second amendment interpretation 207: Adjustment To My Recent "well regulated" Posts)

I think that I got confused there and did not need the talk about the distinction between status and description I tried to make. Proving  the necessity of  "well regulated" as a description is good enough for the start of my argument. Then, from there, one can say that if this description has no necessary use in the environment then it is unnecessary and that makes the well regulated Militia unnecessary which makes the Militia unnecessary, because the capitalization of the word "militia" applies the well regulated description on the militia directly. In other words, because of the capitalization of the word "militia" one cannot say that  a militia is a group of people and therefore a well regulated militia means a well regulated group of people and therefore  not necessarily well regulated group at some role that group is required to take and therefore the necessity condition of the amendment applies on any militia. Capitalization of the word "militia" prevents that path because it does not allow individual existences for the components of a Militia. Therefore, the group component cannot cancel how it should carry a role it is required to take, by taking the  description of that role and making that description a description of itself (I took the role here as a description of the group but if one takes it as something requiring action then the process just described would need to be applied on the role itself first).